'Why is a person’s sexual orientation accepted, but their relationship is not? Why is it OK to be gay and a priest, but it’s not OK to want to make the person you love your husband'

Thanks for posting your article Simon.

The rather unkind cynic in me feels that in the past it has been possible to equate homosexuality with promiscuity. Promiscuity is a bad thing therefore homosexuality must be bad.

Now there are two ways of registering your faithfulness as a homosexual - namely, Civil Partnership or marriage. Therefore it is possible to be homosexual and not promiscuous.

The wicked part of me wonders whether there are a number of people who are frightened of reducing the number of sinners who can be condemned. They were happy with 'they are aren't married' therefore they are sinners.

Allow same sex marriage and CPs and suddenly there are a whole load of people who can no longer be condemned.

I would have thought bishops would be falling over themselves to accept same-sex marriage and CPs so that they no longer have to turn blind eyes to irregular partnerships. Although they are probably having to do that more and more to heterosexual couples as marriage breakdown is more common.

"...why the Church’s official bodies, as opposed to its members generally, are so set against same-sex marriage..."

This is the extraordinary bias and facade.

It is perfectly well known that the church is divided between two contradictory views of gay and lesbian sex, and - as an extension - marriage.

Yet the church officials and leaders act as if the church has only one point of view. That is simply not true.

Increasingly, men and women in the pews reflect the inclusion and acceptance of gay and lesbian relationships that has been led by society at large.

There is therefore a conflict between what the church 'says' it believes, and what its members actually believe (which is basically two different things).

The astonishing thing is that church leaders try to impose one position on the consciences of all. That is an act of bias, taking the side of one view, while threatening punitive sanctions against members of the other sincerely-held view.

The idea that the church has "a" position on human sexuality is fantasy - but it is a fantasy promoted by the leaders of the church and its officials.

When people - in sincerity and good conscience - believe diametrically opposed views on human sexuality, there is really only one honest way forward:

To publicly recognise there are two divergent views (held in good conscience) and seek to live out 'Unity in Diversity'... at which point, what really counts most is no longer dogma but grace... the grace to love each other even when we disagree, and to co-exist, seeking grace in all our lives, in our different expressions.

This should be a grace issue, not a dogma issue, and the life of Jesus speaks vastly more of inclusion than of exclusion.

The church leadership is doing a kind of back-door 'Covenant' - in trying to enforce uniformity on people's consciences, their tender love, their commitment, their marriages, their joy.

In devaluing gay and lesbian sex, the church's officials are not speaking for a huge number of people who take a different view, with far more generosity of spirit.

Ordinary people wish gay and lesbian couples well. We have grown up as a society. They condone and accept gay and lesbian sexuality.

The demand for uniformity where there is no uniformity seems like a desperate act of 'control', but it is also a fantasy position, while it leaves sincere lay truth-seekers outside the church, frankly, aghast.

Susannah said, "The church leadership is doing a kind of back-door 'Covenant.'"

Well put. And we all know how that turned out. It was outright rejected by the Church of England as a whole.

There is also the women-bishops debacle, in which Parliament and the nation had to drag the Church of England into the 20th century.

The archbishops and their staffs would do well to learn from those mistakes. If the CofE wants to remain established, then gay marriage is inevitable.

Posted by Jeremy at
Wednesday, 11 November 2015 at 9:18pm GMT

This Yank from across the Pond says "Thank you! Simon"

On this side of the pond we have government clerks (registrars), part of whose duty is to issue civil marriage licenses. Their duties simply entail making sure a) there are only two people, b) they are of legal age, and c) they have the money for the license. That's basically it. But they want to inject their religion into the act, and decide they'll issue licenses to straight couples, but not to gay or lesbian couples. When courts remind them what their duties are, and to perform them -- or else, they complain they're being persecucted just like the early Christians.
It would never occur to them that if their religion conflicts with their job duties to find another job.

For those evangelicals who oppose gay relationships, it's simple: the Bible is God's word; Old and New Testaments condemn homosexuality; God's desired anthropology going back to Eden is heterosexual marriage; end of debate.

Love is, for them, guiding LGBT people away from a "lifestyle" that'll send them to Hell. So appeals to love will never persuade. What, from their POV, could be more loving than saving people from eternal torture?

Some other approach must be found, such as persuading them to let people risk their salvation. Given the importance the free exercise of conscience has in evangelicalism, this may be a runner.

Posted by James Byron at
Wednesday, 11 November 2015 at 10:53pm GMT

The people who should really examine their consciences are those bishops who disagree with the party line but are afraid to say so. There is nothing wrong with a bishop saying (on any matter) "I am duty bound to apply the rules as we have agreed them, but as a matter of fact I do not personally agree with them." Long before women were ordained, there were notable bishops who articulated this view on the matter of ordaining women. It's almost creepy that with the honourable exception of +Buckingham, not a single bishop to my knowledge has been prepared to come out of this closet. I'm proud and pleased to be a priest who propounds the view that we should celebrate all marriages---the first time I did this (quite subtly) in a sermon in a rather conservative church I was astounded by the strength of the positive reaction---about 12 of the congregation individually thanked me and said how much they agreed.

The current position taken by the archbishops and the bishops has a corrosive effect on many faithful churchgoers. If a bishop or priest (Richard Inwood for example, I presume) genuinely still holds the view about equal marriage now only held by a fairly small minority in our country, then it's fair enough that they should put that forward. But those that hold the majority view --- that marriage is for all --- should not feel it is disloyal to say so, even if they are not a majority in the College of Bishops. What do they have to lose?

Posted by Turbulent priest at
Thursday, 12 November 2015 at 12:13am GMT

The appalling thing, Simon, about all this fuss around the subject of clergy same-sex marriage, is that; had the Church reacted more positively to Civil Partnerships for same-sex couples, there may just not have been the same demand for S/S Marriage.

However, now that the State recognises Same-Sex Marriage, the Church is more challenged, because it is seen to object to Same-Sex faithful committed relationship of any sort - worthy of the blessing of God in the Church - at any level, Civil or Ecclesiastical.

Because the Church has never officially embraced Same-Sex Relationships (it actually opposed both S/S Civil Partnerships and S/S Marriage right from day one) the Church is seen by the world as plainly homophobic. To combat that situation, and to regain credibility as part of a just society, the Church will have to listen to her critics.

The major scandal of all sexual relationships is habitual promiscuity - for hetero and homosexuals. Should not the Church be obliged to encourage whatever it takes to encourage faithful, committed, monogamous couples to marry?

I strongly agree with James Byron's analysis: that for many evangelical Christians, the bible has the status of inspired and infallible/inerrant word of God, and - contrary to many more liberal apologists - appears to condemn male-male sex both in the Old Testament and the New Testament.

Therefore, if those evangelical Christians truly believe, as a matter of faith, that the bible is the supreme authority and is inerrant, then to be fair, they can hold their view on human sexuality as a matter of 'conscience'... and still be sincere Christians trying to live out their lives in community and in service, out of love of God.

Where the leadership of the Church of England has in my opinion failed, is in trying to enforce and impose this view as a demanded uniformity, when in the Church itself, belief is divided down the middle on this issue, and there are equal numbers of people who hold the contrary position... that gay and lesbian sexuality should be endorsed and celebrated... in just as much faith and good 'conscience'.

By ignoring the right of 'conscience' to one half of the church, and trying to impose dogmatic uniformity where no such uniformity exists... is a disastrous mistake. It sets the Church down the path of rigid dogma instead of the path of grace.

Where there is such an apparent divide of sincere conscience among Christians in our church, it is essential that we navigate the necessity to agree to disagree... while finding huge common ground in the wide-ranging calls of our faith to love and to serve.

In other words, far from imposing top-down uniformity on its ministers and members, the leaders of the church should have the maturity to seek the ways of grace to navigate this stand-off. The obvious solution is not uniformity (which is a fantasy because there is none), but to seek and struggle and pray for *unity in diversity*... respecting the sincere consciences of both sides of what is otherwise a disastrous divide.

This whole affair... from the standpoint of our God... may not be a test of dogmatic uniform belief, but a test of grace for all of us. The grace to co-exist with people we disagree with. The grace to respect and recognise conscience in another. The grace to heal wounds and alienation, to forgive, to seek unity not in our dogma but in our God... since our union is only, ever, in Christ.

Where are the bishops and leaders in our church who in their own hearts recognise, deep down, that it is grace we need, to journey on with diverse views and beliefs, but a fundamental shared belief in the Way of Jesus Christ? And what a mysterious and potentially wonderful Church, if we can co-exist with one another in so much difference, and still keep faith, and still love.

To me, that is exactly the historic nature and charism of the Church of England, embracing diverse expressions of faith, avoiding rigid sectarianism... homing in on grace, homing in on grace.

"Turbulent priest" assumes that there are other UK bishops who support "gay marriage" but suggests that almost creepily they are afraid to say so. I don't know if there is any solid evidence for that. There is certainly plenty of evidence that many bishops, and other clergy (such as myself) are willing to speak out in defence of what they believe is Christian marriage. I am a liberal Anglican, in no way homophobic, and supportive of legal civil unions being established here in Australia, and am horrified by the deadly attacks in too many places on those with a same sex orientation, needing to be resisted in every way. (Those suffering any form of such persecution I rather think are not helped by the promotion of "same sex marriage".) Nonetheless, whatever our Commonwealth Parliament may decide in the future, there is no way that I, and most supporters of "traditional marriage", can ever recognise such unions as marriage - so what will really be achieved? However I think some who share my views - the great majority of Christians in a world that is wider than the USA - are being intimidated by unpleasant denigration and accusations of homophobia.

Posted by Dr J.R.Bunyan at
Thursday, 12 November 2015 at 10:18am GMT

I second and commend the Turbulent Priest. It is one thing to follow the rules, and another to challenge them by saying one disagrees with them. If the problem is a fine line between "teaching" and "speculating that the current thesis may be wrong" we have no further to look than the Articles, which boldly affirm that the church errs. If the "party line" rule had been in place at the Reformation it would not have happened. It is also absurd to talk about continuing conversation if one side of the conversation risks discipline for speaking its mind.

And yes, I recognized there is a difference between expressing an opinion about a law and taking an action in opposition to a law. Civil or Ecclesial disobedience has its cost, but in the end may be the only way to highlight the error in the law. But surely expressing disagreement with the law should be without cost -- this is what "free" speech means.

Posted by Tobias Haller at
Thursday, 12 November 2015 at 2:51pm GMT

"there is no way that I, and most supporters of "traditional marriage", can ever recognise such unions as marriage - so what will really be achieved?"

What will be achieved is that people will be married, whether you personally believe them to be married or not.

Posted by Erika Baker at
Thursday, 12 November 2015 at 4:50pm GMT

Susannah, you've absolutely nailed it: this is about one group's beliefs being imposed on everyone else. If Anglicanism is a broad church, there must be space for the consciences of all to be respected. If any one faction says my way or the highway, well fine, highway, and they can be the ones to leave.

The Anglican Communion's in this mess 'cause it's attempting to tolerate those who refuse to tolerate others. You can't tolerate the intolerant: you can either appease them, with the burden falling on those they refuse to let be; or you stand up to them.

As a communion, we desperately need to find a way to stand up, for ourselves, but most of all, for others.

It's been good, reading the various responses here, that advocate the need for members of the Church to make the decision to 'Live together in Unity' - with one another 'en Christo' - for that is where out true unity lies. We may be different in our view of one another's understanding of the gift of sexuality but this need not interfere with our experience of the love of God in Christ. The fact is, we are each made in the Image and Likeness of God and we need to respect that, in one another.

"Those suffering any form of such persecution I rather think are not helped by the promotion of "same sex marriage""

In what way, precisely, has the granting of formerly withheld legal rights and protections by the state ever hindered the cause of any oppressed minority? In what way has any oppressed minority ever had their situation worsened by public recognition of their status as equal to those of the majority? Or is Dr Bunyan perhaps operating under the common heterosexual delusion that homophobia is something that only happens to other people in bad countries very far away, and hasn't ever happened even the slightest little bit in the UK for the last twenty to thirty years?

I am a lesbian born at the end of the 1980s and I can hardly even begin to express how immensely the cultural milieu has changed due in very large part to the raft of gay rights legislation introduced by the Blair government. Equalities legislation, including the recognition of our relationships by the state in the same manner as heterosexual ones, makes an incredible amount of difference to the lives of lesbian, gay and bisexual people because it changes the social fabric that we inhabit as much as it gives us actual legal recourse against those who still persecute us. I pray and long for the day when every state will allow us to publicly celebrate the love that God gifts us with.

Also a tip for Dr Bunyan and every other hand-wringing traditionalist who finds being called homophobic the worst conceivable insult; you may find it easier to avoid such clearly horrifying accusations by not using creepy and alienating language such as referring to us as 'homosexuals' or 'persons with a same sex orientation'. We are lesbians, gay men, and bisexuals. Do us the courtesy of using the names we call ourselves and we might start to believe you really do think we're human.

Posted by Junia at
Friday, 13 November 2015 at 1:00am GMT

The biggest problem for the institutions calling themselves "The Church" is that they no longer have authority. They have squandered it, flagrantly, in pursuit of temporal power, a completely self-centered and self-serving public interference with individuals' lives, and a truly impressive degree of hypocrisy in the treatment of the "sins" of laity vs. the "human failings" of clergy.

They no longer have authority to teach and interpret, and this isn't a sudden or recent development - it has been the case for centuries; it is simply that the secular state no longer feels compelled to back the hypocrisy and selfishness of the institutions.

"Why is a person’s sexual orientation accepted, but their relationship is not?"

It's even worse than that, Simon. Why is their *sexual relationship* accepted (for ALL intents and purposes!), but merely the word "marriage" applied to such a relationship is not? [Something the serious Dr Bunyan, above, still doesn't explain---except to label his position, dubiously, "traditional" (Would love to see the Biblical/Church Fathers' distinction between "marriage" and "civil partnership"! O_o)]

Posted by JCF at
Friday, 13 November 2015 at 12:37pm GMT

Julia

"We are lesbians, gay men, and bisexuals. Do us the courtesy of using the names we call ourselves and we might start to believe you really do think we're human."

There's a problem. Most other streams are moving away from words which label people, rather than labelling their behaviour or history. That's very much true in terms of people with disabilities, and is also true in terms of gender reassignment where the terms trans, transgender or transsexual are regarded as offensive by a significant proportion (but not others). It's odd, but lesbians are perhaps the only group who uniformly identify as the label - even gay men are [more?] often "gay men" rather than gays.

Posted by Kate at
Friday, 13 November 2015 at 1:57pm GMT

"Most other streams are moving away from words which label people, rather than labelling their behaviour or history"

Is there no opportunity to attack lesbians and gays that will not be followed?

Kate, you seem to miss the point of quite how offensive the term 'homosexual' can be. It's rare to find anyone in the LGBT community born in the past 60 years using it: outside of technical scientific journals it is used almost exclusively in disparaging or negative contexts. As far as I can see, that is what Junia was pointing out.

And to reiterate, it's not for you to determine what people from the LGBT communities call themselves. If 'most other streams' are moving away, and lg are not, that's up to us, not you, not the bishops, the media or self-appointed moral guardians in the church. Again, what we choose to call ourselves is our choice.

'lesbian' or 'gay' are terms that refer to sexual orientations, not behaviours, difficult though it seems to be for conservatives to acknowledge.

Posted by Fr Andrew at
Friday, 13 November 2015 at 6:42pm GMT

"but merely the word "marriage" applied to such a relationship is not?" JCF

During cross-examination at the ET hearing, Dr Malcolm Brown, the Church of England's 'Director of Mission and Public Affairs' said that if same-sex marriage had been called "Civil Partnership Max" (no, I am not making this up) the Church would have had no problem with it. He was then asked if it were called "morriage" rather than "marriage" would that have been alright, too?

Posted by Laurence Cunnington at
Friday, 13 November 2015 at 10:28pm GMT

"However I think some who share my views - the great majority of Christians in a world that is wider than the USA - are being intimidated by unpleasant denigration and accusations of homophobia."

No matter how you slice it and dice it, if you prevent LGBTQ people from receiving their full human and legal rights, and accepting their call to the sacrament of marriage, then I'm afraid it is indeed homophobia.

The inherent problem of "identity politics" is that a power group forcefully imposes their power on others, rather than respecting the lived experience of the non power group. This is true of race and pretty much any in/out group. I am a gay Christian. God has blessed me with a loving spouse and called me into covenant with her. No one has inside knowledge into that call, except our priest and spiritual directors. The arrogance of anyone to presume anything about our relationship and our relationship to our loving and merciful God is none of your business - and certainly not anyone's business to exclude.

The arrogance of anyone believing that they hold the truth about other people's lives is breath taking. After all the oppression of the church, burning witches, supporting slavery, anti-semitism, one would think that the power holders would be more circumspect.

It is homophobic to deny my existence and experience of God and to deny the sacrament that calls us. Sorry, but it simply is. Identity politics are not something you can "disagree" about, per se, because a human being isn't an argument.

Posted by Cynthia at
Friday, 13 November 2015 at 11:22pm GMT

Actually Fr Andrew as a member of the "LGBT" community myself I am just as entitled as anybody else to comment on the use of labels.

Posted by Kate at
Saturday, 14 November 2015 at 12:52am GMT

I don't see how it can be regarded as other than a phobia to fear the effect of same sex relations on oneself. Add to this a very palpable and definite expression of fear that it will lead to bestiality, child sexual abuse, polygamy (which is, apparently, acceptable as long as it brings more numbers into the Anglican Communion!), Muslim violence, and a litany (pun intended) of other evils upon the world which the acceptance of usury, divorce, military service and other "innovations" of the church hierarchy are not supposed to have released, and I see no other word but "phobia" as appropriate - it is an irrational fear. The suppression of same sex relationships is based upon fear, and it's time to stop pretending it's about love or faithfulness or rationality - time to stop on both sides. Even when the person doing the suppressing and declaiming is convinced that it is about love, and presents it as love or faithfulness, the basis is fear, and is expressed as fear - fear of God's wrath, fear of loss of standing as an institution, fear of the collapse of society, fear of a lack of reproduction to keep pace with other religions, fear of one's own impulses. Fear for self, usually, but always irrational. It is especially irrational when the amorphous claims of maybe-ill is balanced against the verifiable ills of gay-bashing, suicide, despair, crushing loneliness and social exclusion brought about by this irrational fear. We all have sins born of irrational fear, but calling them virtues is no good!

Posted by MarkBrunson at
Saturday, 14 November 2015 at 4:39am GMT

MarkBrunson, how is it that you know the motivation of traditionalists is fear? By what superior authority do you claim such insight knowing their hearts better than they? They think their motivation is love or loyalty to God but you know it is simply irrational fear. I am fascinated to discover why I should think you speak from anything other than severe delusion.

Posted by Rob at
Monday, 16 November 2015 at 6:43pm GMT

"MarkBrunson, how is it that you know the motivation of traditionalists is fear?"

Mark might have a different take... However, the hate against gays is irrational. When one looks at the amount of ink in Scripture devoted to divorce, economic justice, healing the sick, offering hospitality, and loving ones neighbor, it is hard to see how people could get so worked up about gays. When you ponder the grievous errors of the past, like using Scripture to justify burning witches, supporting slavery, etc., then one might think that a certain humility might be appropriate. And then thee is the inescapable fact that if you're are going to use Scripture to condemn LGBTQ people, you surely have to cherry pick and make excuses for the bits that required stoning adulterers and condemns people who eat shellfish, sport tattoos, or wear mixed fibres.

When you add that up, it's pretty difficult to see how anyone could be so certain as to feel justified in violating the rights of gays, and excluding us from our calls to marriage or ministry. If it isn't rational, then that puts it in the realm of being a phobia. People who have this phobia seem to have major blind spots.

Posted by Cynthia at
Tuesday, 17 November 2015 at 7:42am GMT

Whatever your views on marriage, sexuality, sexual orientation and the Church (and I know they will vary) this case is important for a number of reasons:
it clarifies (or will clarify on appeal) the relationship between the C of E and the Equality Act & hence all faiths and equality;
it clarifies the role of bishops in setting doctrine (it might not do that, but it appears that way to me);
it clarifies the role of the C of E in giving licences or permission to officiate or for a cleric to be in good standing (is there room for an Anglicanism that allows married clergy to still be in good standing if they have married someone of the same sex?) - could the Episcopal Church accredit these Anglicans?
it may not help the Church reach a common mind on its view of sexuality, or the pragmatism that does not allow it to reach that common mind.
And for Jeremy and his husband, to their family and friends, it matters a great deal.
I reserve judgement on whether it matters to ecumenical partners and other provinces of the Anglican communion. It matters to Unite the Union, which is pro-equality by instrument of amalgamation and its rulebook, and I think this case has wider significance re the House fo Lords and establishment.

Posted by Adrian Judd at
Tuesday, 17 November 2015 at 4:25pm GMT

Thanks Cynthia. I see you have similar insight. Only you see (or assume) "hate against gays". And what gives you such prophetic insight? Why should I think you aren't just seeing through a lens of hate?

Posted by Rob at
Wednesday, 18 November 2015 at 11:00pm GMT

"it clarifies the role of the C of E in giving licences or permission to officiate or for a cleric to be in good standing (is there room for an Anglicanism that allows married clergy to still be in good standing if they have married someone of the same sex?) - could the Episcopal Church accredit these Anglicans?"

Are you asking if TEC would consider priests who are married to same sex partners if they are in "good standing?" Yes! Except in a handful of dioceses. Some TEC bishops are INSISTING that gay clergy get married and live in the same covenant as everyone else.

Or are you asking if married clergy in CoE could get their accreditation from TEC instead of CoE? And still be actve in England? That seems like a sticky wicket. We welcome everyone but I'm not sure we want to actively poach. If the "new Anglican Communion" is going to cross boundaries (like Nigerian bishops overseeing American churches) and it's all by mutual consent, sure.

I can't quite tell which question you're asking. It certainly feels like CoE is out-of-step, morally, with it's own country.

Posted by Cynthia at
Thursday, 19 November 2015 at 2:08am GMT

I did put in a response, that seems to have been lost.

Simply put, Rob, the answer to your question was there in the post you are complaining about. How do I know? We ALL know, because they tell us constantly. We are neither deluded, nor stupid and are quite capable of processing what is obviously a fear-based response, particularly when the language of fear is explicitly used. (Anger, by the way, is also a strong indication of fear, just so you know.)

As you seem to believe I should court your approval as to what you think, you owe me an apology for attempting to purposefully twist my original post as well as the unsubtle dig at my sanity, which, I notice, was allowed to be posted without reproach.

Posted by MarkBrunson at
Thursday, 19 November 2015 at 8:20am GMT

"And what gives you such prophetic insight? Why should I think you aren't just seeing through a lens of hate?"

The same thing that gives "traditionalists" a prophetic insight into the nature of a sexual orientation they don't share and reject, utterly.

You are free to see "hate" wherever you like. I have not spoken of hate, but fear, as has Cynthia. Hate would appear, Rob, to be the lens through which *you* are perceiving the entire subject, wouldn't you say? Cynthia and I have both spoken of the shared human condition of irrational fear, and the recognition of that, rather than the attempt to justify and rationalize that fear.

Posted by MarkBrunson at
Friday, 20 November 2015 at 5:32am GMT

"And what gives you such prophetic insight?"

Because I'm a gay person who has suffered mightily on all fronts, including the church. Being in TEC, and now happily married, I have insight into the causes of suffering for my LGBTQ sisters and brothers. The cause is people who oddly and irrationally believe that they have every right not only to their beliefs, but to ACT upon those beliefs to inflict pain and suffering on LGBTQ people.

It certainly isn't love if you are inflicting pain and suffering on fellow human beings. I don't know if that's prophetic or not, but there's a boatload of scripture that clearly prioritizes an array of moral issues above loving same sex couples.

Oh yes, I have insight. And I've had enough of people who dishonestly cherry pick Scripture to support their bigotry, their irrational fears, and yes, their hate.

I'm sure that some think they are being "objective" in their claims to exclude and demean gay people. Power holders have an incredible capacity for self delusion.

Posted by Cynthia at
Saturday, 21 November 2015 at 7:09am GMT

Post a comment

Name:

Email Address:

URL:

Remember personal info?YesNoComments:

Please note that comments are limited to 400 words. Comments that are longer than 400 words will not be approved.

Cookies are used to remember your personal information between visits to
the site. This information is stored on your computer and used to refill
the text boxes on your next visit. Any cookie is deleted if you select
'No'. By ticking 'Yes' you agree to this use of a cookie by this site. No
third-party cookies are used, and cookies are not used for analytical,
advertising, or other purposes.